When a Reviewer "likes" something


... what does that mean in your opinion. I read in one of the last Stereophile mags a comment from Mr. Atkinson where he wrote about the differences in "opinions" in forums or in printed mags. After all he ended with the argument, a component is good when a reviewer likes it.
Isn't is more helpful, when a reviewer knows something about a real tone reproduction? Or is it ok, when he used every month another CD or LP he got for free, a kind of music nearly no one wants to listen to?
Harry Pearson used in the 90's always the same records for his reviews but that was an exception I think.
What is it worth for you when - for example - Mr. Dudley/Fremer/Valin/HP .... "likes" something? Do you have the same "taste" they have?
I know it is possible to like a Turntable even when that unit can't hold the proper speed, or is extremely sensitive to any influences, there are endless recommendations written about such units...what is it worth for you?
Atkinson for example measures units, some have top datas but they can sound very boring, far away from the real thing, some have no top datas, some "tests" are shortened because a unit can reach a area which can be pretty dangerous (see one of the latest Agostino units, just as an example) but they are rated Class A in recommendations anyway....
When someone "knows" what is right or not, then his "liking" is only a personal opinion which is more or less uninteresting or?
Most customers (not all of course) would prefer to know what a unit is really able to do sonically, or not? Would knowledge destroy the joy of Hardware rolling? Or is there a reason why reviewers use low efficiency speakers when they have a tube amp for review (for example Lamm ML2.1/ML2.2 with Magico Speakers)? Is the matching "expensive + expensive" the proper way to show competence?
syntax

Showing 5 responses by swampwalker

+1 Manitunc- You are on a roll, dude (or dudette, as the case may be). Some great posts lately.
I suspect that one might even be disappointed by a live music performance versus an engineered sound studio recording. But that is a discussion for another day.
Bifwynne- Interesting that you say that, because I am actually the opposite. I find that (assuming that they are reasonably well done) I prefer "live" recordings. Don't know why but I can speculate that the audience interaction inspires the artist and the lack of overprocessing/overdubbing/over-manipulating allows the "truth" to come through more clearly. Of course, I can't carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket so if the instrument or voice is a LITTLE off-key/out-of-tune, I'd never know it.
BIF- W the knowledge you got from Ralph's white paper, some of the basic equipment specs and the technical measurements that JA posts in those little sidebars, you can get pretty far down the road of figuring out if a speaker and an amp are clearly mis-matched. JA will frequently even point that out. Of course, every once in a while, there is a product that "breaks the rules" but if you mesh that approach w lots of reading and research, you should be able to get in the right ballpark.

I also think that some of the disagreement w Raul's approach may be based on differing goals. Raul says (I'm paraphrasing, so feel free to correct me, Raul) that his goal is to reproduce exactly what's on the recording. Nothing more, nothing less. My goal is to have an emotionally enriching experience listening to an artist's work. In my mind, if the hardware can deliver exactly what is on the software, but the music does not move me, then so what? It's kind of like living in Manhattan and owning an exotic car. The traffic, stop lights, potholes and pedestrians would not make driving it pleasurable? Taking this analogy further, if Raul is happier/more satisfied knowing that the car he is driving in NYC can go 0-60 in 3.2 sec and push 0.98 gs on the skid pad, more power to him.